1. family and parenting
2. children

The Impact of Financial Education for Youth in Ghana
March 2015
James Berry, Dean Karlan, and Menno Pradhan1
Abstract
We evaluate, using a randomized trial, two school-based financial literacy education programs in
government-run primary and junior high schools in Ghana. One program integrated financial and social
education, whereas the second program only offered financial education. Both programs included a
voluntary after-school savings club that provided students with a locked money box. After nine months,
both programs had significant impacts on savings behavior relative to the control group, mostly because
children moved savings from home to school. We observed few other impacts. We do find that financial
education, when not accompanied by social education, led children to work more compared to the control
group, whereas no such effect is found for the integrated curriculum; however, the difference between the
two treatment effects on child labor is not statistically significant.
Keywords: financial literacy; youth finance; savings
JEL Codes: D14, J22, J24, O12
1
James Berry: [email protected], Cornell University, IPA, and J-PAL; Dean Karlan: [email protected], Yale
University, IPA, J-PAL, and NBER; Menno Pradhan: [email protected], VU University Amsterdam and University
of Amsterdam. Thanks to Kehinde Ajayi, Susana Peralta, Genevieve Melford and seminar participants at NEUDC and
the NOVA School of Business and Economics for useful comments and discussions. We are also grateful to Aflatoun,
Netherlands Development Organization, Women and Development Program, Ask Mama Development Organization,
Berea Social Foundation, and Support for Community Mobilization Projects and Programs for collaboration and
implementation of the programs, and thanks to Hana Freymiller, Gabriel Tourek, Christian Damanka, Jessica Kiessel,
Pace Phillips, Suvojit Chattopadyay, Elana Safran, Carl Brinton, and Ellen Degnan at Innovations for Poverty Action
for assistance managing the field research and analysis. Thanks to the Financial Education Fund for funding support
for the research. The research team has retained complete intellectual freedom from inception to conduct the surveys
and estimate and interpret the results. All errors, omissions and opinions are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of any affiliated institutions.
1
1
Introduction
Governments and donors often support policies to promote financial literacy with the aim of improving
households’ financial decisions. Financial literacy is defined as one’s ability to understand financial
concepts, plan one’s finances, and understand financial services and products. While financial literacy is
correlated with more prudent financial decisions and the use of formal savings and insurance products (Xu
and Zia 2012), this correlation does not imply that teaching financial literacy will lead to more prudent
financial behavior. Perhaps as a result of a presumed causal relationship, a multitude of financial literacy
programs have emerged over the past several decades spanning a variety of content and delivery
mechanisms.
Many financial literacy programs target youth. Even though children are under the financial umbrella of
their parents, the hypothesis is simple: teaching financial literacy to children may more effectively shape
long-term behaviors than teaching such skills later in life. If lessons taught during childhood persist during
adulthood, investing in financial literacy for children may be a cost-effective way to achieve long-lasting
impacts on financial decision making. There is, however, an often-discussed potential downside of
introducing children to the world of finance too early: encouraging children to think more about money
may lead them to prioritize income-generating activities at the expense of schooling (Varcoe et al. 2005).
This concern leads some financial education programs for youth to also include social values and other such
material to mitigate unintended negative consequences.
Despite the potential tradeoff, financial literacy programs for children are common. For example, the
Banking on Our Future program in South Africa promotes financial literacy, entrepreneurship, and youth
empowerment through school programs (Operation HOPE 2014). In Peru, the Financial Education Program
for Secondary Students focuses on training teachers to disseminate knowledge of financial services to their
students who subsequently transmit that knowledge to their families at home (OECD International Gateway
for Financial Education 2007). In Somalia, financial literacy programs targeting youth rely on mass media,
soap opera broadcasts, and mobile phones to teach children about saving and other aspects of finance (Xu
and Zia 2012).
Although there is significant policy interest in youth financial education, little is known about its impact,
particularly in developing countries, or about effective approaches for mitigating the potential consequence
of reduced school attendance. We address this knowledge gap by testing the impact of two school-based
financial literacy programs in Ghana. The first program followed a curriculum developed by Aflatoun.
2
Aflatoun is a large, international non-governmental organization (NGO) that has developed school-based
curricula for financial literacy training and provides technical assistance to local partners, usually NGOs or
ministries of education, to implement these curricula. 2 Its program has been implemented in over 100
countries to date. The Aflatoun program includes financial education, social education, and a school savings
club. The social education component focuses on personal exploration and children’s rights and
responsibilities, while also highlighting the pitfalls of youth labor, such as forgoing school to work and the
risk of dangerous working conditions.
We compare the impact of Aflatoun’s program against a second program, the Honest Money Box (HMB),
which was designed for this evaluation and is directly modeled after the financial components of Aflatoun’s
program, while omitting the social components. HMB thus focused strictly on improving financial skills
and savings behavior. This treatment design allows us to evaluate the marginal benefits of the social
component of the Aflatoun program when added to the financial literacy component.
We conducted the study during the 2010-2011 school year in 135 primary and junior high schools in
southern Ghana. Schools were randomly assigned to receive either the full Aflatoun program (45 schools),
the Honest Money Box program (45 schools), or control (45 schools). We measured a variety of outcomes,
including financial decision-making, support for savings at home, labor, risk and time preferences, financial
literacy, consumption, confidence, and academic performance.
Both programs had positive and significant impacts on savings behavior: children in both programs
increased savings at school. However, we see no impact on the percentage of children who save nor on the
total amount saved, suggesting that the programs led students to shift existing savings into school, or that
children’s self-reports of their savings volume are noisy and unreliable. We find no evidence for impacts
on savings attitudes, home savings support, risk aversion, time preference, financial literacy, expenditures,
confidence, or academic performance.
Critical to a key policy question, we find that the HMB program, but not the Aflatoun program, led youth
to work more, although the difference between the two estimates is not statistically significant. School
attendance did not change, which suggests a possible shift away from leisure or home production instead.
We do not have direct evidence of a reduction in these alternative activities, however.
2
See http://aflatoun.org/.
3
Our paper contributes to the limited body of rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of youth financial
literacy training. 3 Studies on the effects of financial literacy programs on primary and middle school
children are especially scarce. Hinojosa et al. (2009) conduct a randomized evaluation of a financial literacy
program in the United States for children in grades 4-10 and find positive impacts on mathematics scores
and financial knowledge, although the analysis does not account for substantial attrition and noncompliance in the sample. Several non-experimental studies have found positive impacts of financial
literacy training in primary and middle schools using comparisons of participants with non-participants, or
using before-after comparisons of participants (Diem et al. n.d.; Harter and Harter 2007; Sherraden et al.
2011; Hagedorn, Schug, and Suiter 2012).
A somewhat larger literature evaluates the impact of financial literacy education at the secondary level.
Bruhn et al. (2013) evaluate the impact of a financial education program in Brazilian public high schools.
The three-semester program consisted of 72 case studies, each involving one to two hours of teaching. The
authors find positive effects on financial proficiency (about 0.2 standard deviations), saving for purchases,
and financial budgeting in data collected four and 16 months after the start of program implementation.
Lührmann, Serra-Garcia, and Winter (2014) find that participation in financial education can increase time
consistency among German high school students. Becchetti, Caiazza, and Coviello (2013) and Becchetti
and Pisani (2012) evaluate a financial literacy program for high school students in Italy and find some
evidence that the program increased financial literacy, although the analysis is complicated by large
improvements in financial literacy in the control group and by pre-existing differences between treatment
and control students. In non-experimental work in the US, Cole and Shastry (2010) use variation in statemandated programs to identify the effects of financial literacy education in high school. They find no
evidence that exposure to financial literacy education affects later savings. A number of other nonexperimental studies have found mixed evidence on the effects of financial literacy training on high school
students (Carlin and Robinson 2010; Mandell and Klein 2009; Varcoe et al. 2005; Walstad, Rebeck, and
MacDonald 2010).
2
Program description and evaluation design
2.1 Program Description
The Aflatoun curriculum was developed by the international NGO and has been adapted and implemented
around the world. The HMB curriculum was adapted from Aflatoun by Ask Mama Development
3
For a review of evaluations of financial literacy training for adults in developing countries, see Hastings, Madrian,
and Skimmyhorn (2013); Miller et al. (2013).
4
Organization (AMDO) and Innovations for Poverty Actions (IPA) staff, and derived its name from the
money box used to safeguard the savings deposits of club members. It contained the financial but not the
social components of the Aflatoun treatment (see Table 1).
The HMB curriculum began with eight structured one-hour sessions conducted by teachers who acted as
facilitators for school clubs set up as part of the program. The clubs met weekly for one hour after school.
The content and objectives of the sessions are provided in Table 1. Children were first encouraged to
participate in the club and, once recruited, were introduced to the importance of money, savings and
spending, planning and budgeting, personal finances, and entrepreneurship.
The additional social components of the Aflatoun treatment included sessions on personal exploration and
children’s rights and responsibilities.4 Details on the additional sessions are listed in Table 2. For example,
the Aflatoun curriculum taught children the rights described in the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child: “Children (under the age of 16 years) are entitled to be protected from social or economic
exploitation and shall not be employed in or required to perform work that is likely to be hazardous or to
interfere with their education or to be harmful to their health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social
development.” The curriculum also included several stories about children who were forced to work instead
of attending school. These stories emphasized the difficult and dangerous working conditions experienced
by children and encouraged them to see child labor as a violation of their basic rights. In part because the
Aflatoun curriculum contained lessons dedicated these social topics, it was designed to take more time to
cover than the HMB curriculum (around 24 hours in total).
After clubs had completed the Aflatoun or HMB curriculum, they continued to operate as savings clubs
where children could deposit or withdraw their savings. Both programs provided the schools with a metal
padlocked savings box which was used to safeguard children’s deposits. Each deposit and withdrawal was
recorded by the teacher or a student club officer in the club ledger book and in the member’s passbook.
The proper use of these tools was monitored by the implementing organizations throughout the study period.
At baseline, before the intervention, none of the schools had after-school programs related to savings.
Both programs were implemented by the same Ghanaian organizations. 5 The local organizations and
international NGOs also coordinated with the Ghana Education Service, a government agency.
4
The curriculum was taught at different levels for primary and junior secondary students but covered the same set of
core concepts. In program schools that contained both primary and junior secondary grades, children were typically
divided into separate clubs by age.
5
The contracting partner was the Netherlands Development Organization who in turn partnered with Women and
Development Project, the Ask Mama Development Organization, Berea Social Foundation, and Support for
Community Mobilization Projects and Programs.
5
The interventions began in October 2010 and lasted through the close of the school year, in July 2011. In
workshops on club curriculum and protocols, IPA and local organizations trained the teachers selected by
their schools to lead an Aflatoun or HMB club. They also monitored program implementation throughout
the study period by visiting schools and interviewing teachers and students about the progress and activities
of the club. Timing of implementation varied across schools. Out of the 83 Aflatoun and HMB schools for
which monitoring data are available, the majority established clubs in December 2010 and January 2011.
By the end of February 2011, 72 schools (87%) had established a club.
2.2 Evaluation design
We exploited the intended phase-in of the Aflatoun program to employ an experimental design.6 From a
list of 165 eligible schools7 located in the program districts provided by district officials and implementing
partners, 135 were randomly selected to be included in the program. The sample includes primary (grades
1-6), junior high (grades 7 and 8), and “basic” (combined primary and junior secondary) schools in three
districts: 36 in Nkwanta, 30 in Greater Accra East, and 69 in Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan Area. Within
each district, sample schools were sorted by average within-grade class size and then grouped into triplets.
Within these triplets, schools were randomly assigned to the Aflatoun intervention, the HMB intervention,
or a control group.8 Thus, there were 45 strata in the randomization.
Baseline data were collected in September 2010, and endline data nine months later in July 2011.9 We thus
present short-term impacts of the Aflatoun and HMB programs.
We sampled an average of 40 students from each school in the study.10 Although children of all grades were
eligible to participate in the after-school clubs, our surveys targeted children in grades 5 and 7 because these
children would presumably have more access to money and familiarity with finances than their younger
peers. Additionally, these students would remain in the same schools the following school year, and would
6
The intended phase-in did not materialize. As a result of budget issues, the program was not extended to control
group schools.
7
Two exclusion criteria were applied: First, we excluded “shift” schools from the study sample. Unlike “straight day”
schools, shift schools host two different groups of students in the morning and afternoon, making it difficult to
implement an after school program. Second, when multiple schools were located within the same compound, we
randomly selected only one of those schools to join the pool of potential study schools.
8
The randomized assignment was implemented correctly in all but two schools: one school assigned to the Aflatoun
treatment implemented the HMB treatment, and one school assigned to the HMB treatment implemented the Aflatoun
treatment. The analysis is based on the original randomized assignment.
9
Surveys are available online at http://poverty-action.org/project/0465.
10
In 118 schools, we surveyed exactly 40 students. Due to surveyor error or logistical constraints, we surveyed
between 22 and 39 students in ten schools, and between 41 and 47 students in six schools.
6
be easier to locate if a follow-up occurred the next year.11 In primary and junior high schools, 40 students
were randomly selected from grades 5 and 7, respectively. In basic (combined) schools, 20 students were
randomly selected from grade 5, and 20 were selected from grade 7. When schools contained fewer than
the target number of students in a given grade, additional students were randomly selected from adjacent
grades. The final sample contains 45% from grade 5, 46% from grade 7, and 9% from adjacent grades.12
To deal with multiple hypothesis issues, we group the outcome indicators into 11 indices and discuss the
components of each index in the results section. The 11 indices cover savings behavior, savings attitudes,
home savings support, work, risk preference, time preference, financial literacy, expenditures on self,
expenditures on temptation goods, confidence, and academic performance.
For each of the indices we follow the method employed by Kling, Liebman and Katz (2007). The summary
index for child i over the set of
outcome variables in group d is defined as the mean of the z-scores of
the non-missing outcome variables in that group. Missing outcome variables are imputed at the mean zscore of the non-missing variables for that individual. Each variable is scaled such that it contributes
positively to the header or overall concept used for the index.
=
Where
and
1
−
are the mean and standard deviations of variable
schools. The resulting index
(2)
estimated from the control group
is then normalized by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard
deviation from the control group. The final summary index thus provides an equal weight to each
component variable and has a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.
Table 3 presents summary statistics, including verification of orthogonality of treatment assignment with
baseline values. Overall, there are few significant differences between the treatment groups at baseline. As
shown in Column 7, two out of the 11 indices are not balanced at the 10 percent level across both the
Aflatoun and HMB treatment groups (work index and temptation expenditures index). All impact
specifications include controls for the stratification variables as well as the baseline value of the outcome
measure, if it exists.
Attrition rates for the endline survey were low (1.4%) and uncorrelated with assignment to treatment.13 To
test for differential attrition by treatment status along baseline characteristics, we regress completion of
11
Students typically change schools after grade 6, hence our reason for excluding them from the survey sample.
The main results are robust to restricting the sample to only 5th and 7th graders.
13
The attrition rate was 1.4% in the control schools, 1.4% in the Aflatoun schools, and 1.3% in the HMB schools.
12
7
endline survey on Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies, the full set of baseline indices, and the indices
interacted with each treatment dummy. The F-test that the treatment dummies and all interaction terms are
jointly equal to zero has p-value = 0.55 (result not shown in table). We thus find no evidence that attriters
have different baseline characteristics across treatment groups.
To obtain the impact estimates we employ a regression model
,
where
=
+
+
+
denotes the outcome of student i in school j in strata k,
stratum, and
and
,
+
(1)
represents a dummy variable for each
are dummies indicating the school’s inclusion in either the Aflatoun
or the HMB treatment. Standard errors are clustered at the school level, the unit of randomization. When
outcome variables were not included in the baseline survey,
,
is omitted from the specification.
Where baseline values are missing for some but not all observations, we recode the missing baseline value
to zero and include a dummy variable to indicate the missing value. When we do not have a full set of
baseline values for components of an index, we construct the baseline index using only the components
included in the baseline survey.
The impact estimates are intent-to-treat effects, and do not take into account whether the child participated
in the savings club or not. An instrumental variable approach, to estimate the treatment on the treated, would
require precise measures on participation in savings clubs in all of the schools in the study. We do not have
such measures. Even if participation data were available, the instrumental-variables estimation would
require assuming no impact on non-participants in treatment schools. Such an assumption would be difficult
to substantiate because the theory of change of the program includes spillovers: untreated individuals
influence the attitudes and thus behaviors of their fellow students (although we do not find a direct effect
on savings attitudes). Furthermore, aside from technical obstacles to the treatment on the treated, the intentto-treat estimate provides the more policy relevant estimate of the average impact of programs such as these.
Although we do not have data on club membership and attendance data for all schools in our sample, we
were able to collect membership information for a non-random subset of ten Aflatoun schools and seven
HMB schools.14 Below we present an analysis of the characteristics of children who took up the programs
14
The subsample of schools for which we have take-up data had similar patterns of implementation to those in the full
sample. As in the full sample, the majority of schools in the take-up subsample established clubs in December 2010
and January 2011.
8
in these schools. We emphasize that because we do not have complete take-up information for all schools,
these results should be taken as suggestive.
In the subgroup of schools for which we have data, 16 percent of the children surveyed had joined the clubs
in the Aflatoun schools, and 30 percent of the children had joined the clubs in the Honest Money Box
schools. Table 4 regresses an indicator for club membership on baseline values of our outcome indices as
well as a set of seven demographic and academic variables. Column 1 restricts the sample to the Aflatoun
schools for which we have data. The explanatory variables in this regression have little predictive power.
Out of the 16 variables in the regression, the only statistically significant variables are school grade
repetition and durables ownership (both positive, and statistically significant at the 10 and 5 percent level,
respectively). Column 2 repeats the analysis for the HMB schools. In this case, students who save more at
baseline are significantly more likely to be members of the HMB clubs, as well as students who are more
financially literate and those who spend more. This suggests that interest in the HMB clubs could depend
on prior experience with savings and money.
3
Results
Table 5 presents the impact of the programs on each of the 11 summary endline indices. Appendix Tables
1 through 11 show the results for the individual variables used to construct the indices.
3.1
Savings
The savings behavior index includes eight variables that measure the proportion of children who save,
amounts saved, savings inside and outside of school, and regularity of savings. As shown in Table 5, we
find positive impacts on the index for both programs, with HMB leading to an increase of 0.16 standard
deviations (s.e. = 0.058), and Aflatoun producing a 0.12 standard deviation (s.e. = 0.053) increase. The
difference between the Aflatoun and HMB program is not statistically significant (p = 0.48).
Appendix Table 1 shows the effects of the programs on each component of the savings behavior index.
Both programs show positive effects on the proportion of children that save at school (9 percentage points,
s.e. = 0.015, for HMB and 5 percentage points, s.e. = 0.015, for Aflatoun) and the amount of money children
have saved at school (0.47 Ghana cedis15, s.e. = 0.14, for HMB, and 0.44 Ghana cedis, s.e. = 0.17, for
Aflatoun; control mean = 0.165). For each program, the increase in the percentage of children who save is
not significant (2.41 percentage points, se = 0.022 for Aflatoun, 3.15 percentage points, s.e. = 0.025 for
15
The exchange rate from Ghana cedis to USD was 1.5 at the time of the endline survey, in July 2011.
9
HMB), and neither is it significant when both treatments are pooled. We do not find any impact on total
amount saved, but the 95% confidence interval on that variable is large (the upper bound of the treatment
effect of Aflatoun is 25% of the control group mean). Nonetheless, a lack of an effect on the total savings
suggests that the program caused students to move their savings to the school accounts. This is consistent
with the fact that we do not find any impact on the expenditure variables.
The savings attitude index captures children’s opinions on the importance of savings. The index is
constructed from ten questions, nine of which are Likert-style questions where the respondent indicates
level of agreement with a statement on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to four (strongly agree). Three
statements relate to the student’s general view of savings, four relate to whether the student believes s/he
should save in addition to adults, and one question measures whether the student saves whenever possible.
The final component of the index is the student’s allocation to savings if s/he were hypothetically given
five cedis. As shown in Table 5, we find a precise null pooled treatment effect of 0.031 standard deviation
(s.e. = 0.039). Appendix Table 2 presents similar null results on each component.
The home savings support index reflects how the student’s family perceives the student’s savings, as well
as access to savings at home. The five component variables measure whether the student talks to relatives
about savings, how adults in the household view child savings, perceived safety of savings with family, and
the number of household bank accounts. As shown in Table 5, we find a precise null pooled treatment effect
of 0.012 standard deviations (s.e. = 0.04), and Appendix Table 3 presents similar null results on all but one
component: we find a positive impact on the perception of students in the HMB group that their parents
would be proud of them for saving, significant at the 10 percent level.
3.2 Labor Supply
Neither treatment encouraged children to seek paid work, but the Aflatoun program explicitly discouraged
child work. For the Aflatoun program, we thus have competing forces: the emphasis the Aflatoun program
put on planning for the future and child self-esteem may lead children to prioritize education over work,
but the emphasis on savings and financial matters could result in children thinking proactively about work
as a way, for instance, to accumulate savings. Because the HMB program did not include the social
component, we hypothesize that the HMB program will increase work through the second mechanism.
The work index includes 11 variables measuring incidence of work, intensity of work, and earnings. As
shown in Table 5, we find that the HMB program led to a 0.102 standard deviation (s.e. = 0.056) increase
in this index. The estimate for the Aflatoun program is 0.038 standard deviations (s.e. = 0.05). However,
the t-test comparing Aflatoun and HMB fails to reject equality (p-value = 0.26).
10
Appendix Table 5 disaggregates the effects on the different components of the work index. To put the
results in context, it is important to first note that many children work. In the control group, 24 percent of
children reported having worked for money in the past four months (February to May). The HMB program
led to a 4.23 percentage point increase in the likelihood of engaging in any work (s.e. = 0.025) during that
period, whereas we see no effect in the Aflatoun group (0.014, s.e. = 0.022, but the p-value for the test to
reject equality of Aflatoun and HMB is 0.25). The same pattern is found when looking month by month.
The increase for the HMB program was statistically significant in two out of the four months, whereas the
change for Aflatoun was not significant in any month (p-values for difference across treatments are 0.14,
0.12, 0.07 and 0.14 for each of the four months). However, the increased work participation in the HMB
group did not appear to lead to extra earnings in the thirty days prior to the survey (1.024 Ghana cedis, s.e.
= 1.68).
The difference in reported labor between the Aflatoun and HMB treatments could arguably be driven by
misreporting (i.e., an experimenter demand effect in which those in the Aflatoun treatment group, because
of the treatment, underreport their child labor but do not actually change their labor supply). However, we
posit this to be unlikely given that we do not observe any differential results on other outcomes that would
also plausibly induce experimenter demand effects, if indeed the children perceived a benefit to
misreporting. For example, we find no evidence of impacts on savings attitudes, even though both programs
promoted a positive view of savings.
3.3 Risk and Time Preferences
We next examine two indices measuring risk and time preferences. The risk preference indicators employ
standard hypothetical risk games, where the student is asked to choose between a certain outcome, and an
uncertain outcome with a higher expected return. The time preference indicators are also based on a
hypothetical game, where the student is asked to make trade-offs between income now and income in the
future. Both indices also contain components that ask about risk and patience in hypothetical but more
realistic situations.
Both treatments, through the promotion of entrepreneurship, may lead participants to feel more comfortable
taking risks. On the other hand, the encouragement of long term planning and savings may encourage taking
fewer risks. Thus the predicted impact on risk preferences is theoretically ambiguous. However, for time
preferences, the prediction is less theoretically ambiguous: we expect the treatments to lead children to
place greater value on future outcomes and thus display more patient time preferences.
11
Our risk preference index is constructed from three hypothetical choices between risky and safe bets, a selfreported scale of the child’s willingness to take risks, and the child’s hypothetical preference to start a highrisk, high-return business over a low-risk, low-return business. The impact estimates are shown in Table 5
and Appendix Table 5. We do not observe statistically significant changes in the risk preference index for
either program (pooled results for the index is -0.07 standard deviations, s.e. = 0.049). However, in both
Aflatoun and HMB schools, we observe statistically significant decreases in one component: children’s
self-reported willingness to take risks. This question asked students, “Are you generally very prepared to
take risks or do you try to avoid taking risks?” Students answered on a scale of 0 to 10, which we converted
to a range of 0 to 1 for the analysis. Students in both the Aflatoun and HMB schools had responses 3
percentage points lower than control-group students (s.e. = 0.016 and s.e. = 0.014, respectively)
We measure time preference through two hypothetical inter-temporal choices and one question on whether
the child would prefer to wait for a medicine that heals completely or receive a medication now that doesn’t
heal completely. We find no statistically significant changes in time preferences from either of the
treatments (Table 5 and Appendix Table 6; 0.032 standard deviations for the pooled treatment analysis, s.e.
= 0.043).
3.4 Financial Literacy and Control of Spending
We now turn to measures of financial literacy. Financial literacy was measured through two hypothetical
“shop games” in which the child was given a list of goods and prices and a certain amount of money, all of
which had to be spent on the available goods. The child was then asked to report how much of each item
s/he would buy. For each game, the index includes an indicator of whether the child correctly allocated the
money (i.e., spent exactly the amount of money given), the absolute value of the difference between the
child’s allocation and the correct allocation, and the number of seconds taken to respond. We also include
an indicator of whether the student makes a spending plan each week. The results are shown in Table 5 and
Appendix Table 7. The effects of the programs on the financial literacy index are small and not statistically
significant (0.0052, s.e. = 0.049), and none of the seven individual components of the index show
statistically significant effects.
Table 5 and Appendix Table 8 examine the student’s propensity to spend on temptation goods, based on
three variables measuring actual and hypothetical spending on snacks and entertainment. We find no
evidence for treatment effects on the index (Table 5; for pooled treatment, -0.027 standard deviations, s.e.
= 0.042). Among the individual components of the index, the Aflatoun treatment reduced hypothetical
spending on entertainment by 0.14 cedis (s.e. = 0.059), but there are no other statistically significant results.
12
We next examine control of personal spending by the child with an expenditure index, consisting of two
questions on the amount the child spent on him/herself in the past seven days and the amount s/he expects
to spend in the next seven days. We do not find a statistically significant impact on the expenditure index
(Table 5; -0.04 standard deviations for the pooled treatment analysis, s.e. = 0.043) or on either question
individually (Appendix Table 9).
3.5 Child Confidence
Table 5 and Appendix Table 10 display the program impacts on measures of confidence. We include five
Likert questions that measure self-esteem and confidence at school. We find no evidence of impacts, though
point estimates on the aggregate index are negative for both programs (-0.029 standard deviations for the
pooled treatment analysis, s.e. = 0.038). Across all of the individual measures, the only measure that is
significantly different in the treatment groups (10 percent level of significance) is an increased likelihood
of agreeing with the statement “Teacher makes you feel you are not good enough” in Aflatoun schools.
While this result could reflect a lower sense of confidence among the Aflatoun group, it should be
interpreted tentatively, as no other indicator within the index shows statistically significant impacts.
3.6 Academic Performance
Finally, we examine program impacts on school attendance and achievement. Attendance was measured
through self-reports of attendance over the past week. To measure aptitude, students were given tenquestion tests in English and math. Separate tests were given to 5th- and 7th-graders, although the structure
of the tests was similar. Test scores were normalized based on the baseline means and standard deviations
in each grade. As shown in Table 5 and Appendix Table 11, we find no evidence of program effects on the
combined academic performance index, or on either of the components individually (-0.04 standard
deviations for the pooled treatment analysis, s.e. = 0.06).
4
Conclusion
We evaluate two programs in Ghana that aimed to increase financial literacy among youths: the Aflatoun
program, which offered both financial and social education, and the HMB program, which offered only
financial education. We find that both programs positively influenced savings behavior (which is explicitly
facilitated through a locked savings box as part of the program), but we find fairly precise null results for
impact on savings attitudes, home support for savings, risk and time preferences, spending patterns,
13
confidence, and academic performance. Savings attitudes and home support for savings are process changes,
intended by program design to be a necessary step for behavior change.
The fact that we observe large behavior change but no underlying process changes is important. We posit
two interpretations. First, simply put, it could be that changing attitudes and home environment was not a
necessary step because a pro-savings attitude and environment already existed. What lacked was merely an
infrastructure for the children to act on those attitudes and environmental factors, and the program provided
that infrastructure. An alternative, pessimistic interpretation is that the behavior change was a mere artifact
of the intervention, an attempt by the schools and children to follow along with a program (i.e. by
substituting savings at home for savings at school), but, with no underlying change in values and attitudes,
one that will dissipate in the long run.
A key test of this will be long-term results. If the optimistic interpretation is correct, one should see
continued savings behavior in the long-run, as long as the infrastructure to save remains in place. If, on the
other hand, the pessimistic interpretation is correct, behavior will revert and no long-term benefits will
accrue. We also find important, although borderline statistically, results on the impact of the programs on
child labor supply. One interpretation for the results on savings and work between the Aflatoun and HMB
treatments is that the social curriculum in the Aflatoun program counteracted an increased interest in
working brought about by the financial education curriculum. Thus, child labor may increase if social
education is not included in a financial literacy program. We note, however, that the child labor we measure
did not appear to displace schooling.
In our context, the costs of developing and implementing school-based financial education were modest.
Excluding fixed curriculum development costs, which amounted to $3,100, the marginal cost of
implementing the HMB program was approximately $5.53 per student. We expect that implementation
costs of Aflatoun were similar, though we are unable to verify due to lack of precise data from the
implementing organization. Because of the scarcity of evidence on financial literacy programs on this age
group, we are unable to make explicit cost comparisons with other programs.
While our work provides a useful starting point for understanding the effects of youth financial education,
more work is needed to both broaden the evidence base and understand the mechanisms behind the program
effects. Again, this calls for long-term tracking of child financial education programs. The results we find,
along with the modest cost of implementing school-based financial education, make these interventions
worthy of continued study.
14
References
Becchetti, Leonardo, Stefano Caiazza, and Decio Coviello. 2013. “Financial Education and Investment
Attitudes in High Schools: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment.” Applied Financial
Economics 23 (10): 817–36.
Becchetti, Leonardo, and Fabio Pisani. 2012. “Financial Education on Secondary School Students: The
Randomized Experiment Revisited.” Aiccon Working Paper No. 98.
Bruhn, Miriam, Luciana de Souza Leão, Rogelio Marchetti, and Bilal Zia. 2013. “The Impact of High
School Financial Education: Experimental Evidence from Brazil.” World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper No. 6723.
Carlin, Bruce, and David Robinson. 2010. “What Does Financial Literacy Training Teach Us?” NBER
Working Paper 16271.
Cole, Shawn, and Gauri Kartini Shastry. 2010. “Is High School the Right Time to Teach Savings
Behavior? The Effect of Financial Education and Mathematics Courses on Savings.” Mimeo,
Wellesley College.
Diem, J., M. Burke, A.G. Bessell, and T Coyne. no date. “JA Economics for Success Program Evaluation:
Final Report.” http://www.myja.org/programs/evaluation/
reports/ja_economics_for_success_evaluation.pdf.
Hagedorn, Eric A., Mark C. Schug, and Mary Suiter. 2012. “Starting Early: A Collaborative Approach to
Financial Literacy in the Chicago Public Schools?” Journal of Economics and Finance
Education 11 (2).
Harter, Cynthia L., and J.F. Harter. 2007. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Financial Fitness for Life in
Eastern Kentucky.” Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, Baltimore, Md.
Hastings, Justine S., Brigitte C. Madrian, and William L. Skimmyhorn. 2013. “Financial Literacy,
Financial Education, and Economic Outcomes.” Annual Review of Economics 5 (1): 347–73.
Hinojosa, Trisha, Shazia Miller, Andrew Swanlund, Kelly Halberg, Megan Brown, and Brenna O’Brien.
2009. The Stock Market Game Study: Final Report. Learning Point Associates; FINRA Investor
Education Fund.
http://www.finrafoundation.org/web/groups/foundation/@foundation/documents/foundation/p119
852.pdf.
Kling, Jeffrey, Jeffrey Liebman, and Lawrence Katz. 2007. “Experimental Analysis of Neighborhood
Effects.” Econometrica 75 (1): 83–120.
Lührmann, Melanie, Marta Serra-Garcia, and Joachim K. Winter. 2014. The Impact of Financial
Education on Adolescents’ Intertemporal Choices. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2483682.
Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2483682.
15
Mandell, Lewis, and Linda Schmid Klein. 2009. “The Impact of Financial Literacy Education on
Subsequent Financial Behavior.” Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning 20 (1): 15–24.
Miller, Margaret, Julia Reichelstein, Christian Salas, and Bilal Zia. 2013. “Can You Help Someone
Become Financially Capable? A Meta-Analysis of the Literature.”
OECD International Gateway for Financial Education. 2007. “Peru: Financial Education Progam for
Secondary Students.” OECD International Gateway for Financial Education.
http://www.financialeducation.org/Peru_Financial_Education_Program_for_Secondary_Students.html.
Operation HOPE. 2014. “Banking on Our Future, South Africa.” Operation HOPE.
http://www.operationhope.org/banking-on-our-future-south-africa.
Sherraden, Margaret Sherrard, Lissa Johnson, Baorong Guo, and William Elliott Iii. 2011. “Financial
Capability in Children: Effects of Participation in a School-Based Financial Education and
Savings Program.” Journal of Family and Economic Issues 32 (3): 385–99. doi:10.1007/s10834010-9220-5.
Varcoe, Karen P., Allen Martin, Zana Devitto, and Charles Go. 2005. “Using a Financial Education
Curriculum for Teens.” Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning 16 (1): 63–71.
Walstad, William B., Ken Rebeck, and Richard A. MacDonald. 2010. “The Effects of Financial
Education on the Financial Knowledge of High School Students.” Journal of Consumer Affairs
44 (2): 336–57.
Xu, Lisa, and Bilal Zia. 2012. “Financial Literacy Around the World: An Overview of the Evidence with
Practical Suggestions for the Way Forward.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.
6107.
16
Table 1: Honest Money Box Curriculum
Core Elements
Objectives
Form Club
Explain the function and operation of the money box club.
State rules for club functioning.
Identify leaders, elect President, Treasurer, and Secretary and assign roles and
responsibilities.
What is money?
Explain money as a medium of exchange.
Identify honest ways of making money.
Saving and Spending
Understand:
The purpose of saving.
How to save.
Types of saving, including non-monetary resources.
Responsible spending behavior.
The money box
Understand:
Heatures of the money box, procedures for depositing and withdrawing.
How to record transactions.
Planning and budgeting
Understand financial goals and develop their own financial goals.
Create a budget plan.
Entrepreneurship
Understand:
Business organization.
Types of businesses.
Skills necessary for running a business.
17
Table 2: Additional Elements of Aflatoun Curriculum
Core Elements
Objectives
Character and Motto
Orient children to the Aflatoun value framework, and enhance their creativity, problemsolving, and reasoning skills.
Encourage children to learn more about Ghana and its unique cultural heritage.
Facilitate an understanding among children that they can contribute to their environment,
by teaching about the contributions made by different people and things.
Personal Understanding and
Exploration
Enable children’s positive self-image through self-awareness and appreciation, and
highlight the different factors which contribute towards building self-image.
Provide children an opportunity to assess themselves and then discuss the experience of
being their own judge.
Allow children to express their likes and dislikes in a non-threatening environment, and
facilitate an understanding of the differences and similarities among people.
Rights and Responsibilities
Teach children a sense of responsibility for their actions towards everything and everyone
in their environment, and an understanding that everything and everyone needs to be
treated with respect.
Orient children to their rights as described in the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child.
Create awareness of the various marginalized groups who do not get their rights in Ghana
and around the world, and develop a sense of responsibility towards those whose rights are
violated.
Sensitize children to the issues of working children and provide children an opportunity to
interact with working children, thereby facilitating a process of dispelling myths and
stereotypes.
Sensitize children to issues related to gender and create awareness on the different forms of
gender discrimination.
Identify social projects and campaigns that could improve children's communities.
18
0.075
(0.050)
-0.015
(0.039)
-0.102
(0.037)
0.037
(0.040)
0.013
(0.032)
0.053
(0.042)
-0.114
(0.032)
-0.001
(0.049)
0.016
(0.046)
0.986
(0.003)
0.000
(0.052)
0.000
(0.040)
0.000
(0.059)
0.000
(0.044)
0.000
(0.039)
0.000
(0.059)
0.000
(0.039)
0.000
(0.059)
0.000
(0.066)
0.986
(0.003)
Savings Attitudes Index
(higher = more positive attitude towards savings)
Home Savings Support Index
(higher = home environment is more conducive to
Work Index
(higher = more likely to work, more hours, etc.)
Risk Preference Index
(higher = less risk averse)
Time Preference Index
(higher = lower discount rate of the future)
Financial Literacy Index
(higher = greater financial literacy)
Expenditures on Temptation Goods Index
(higher = less propensity to spend on temptation goods)
Expenditures on Self Index
(higher = higher expenditures on goods for self)
Academic Index
(higher = higher school attendance and performance)
Completed Endline Survey (%)
0.987
(0.003)
-0.066
(0.070)
0.054
(0.099)
-0.047
(0.049)
0.016
(0.049)
0.008
(0.037)
0.072
(0.040)
0.017
(0.050)
0.024
(0.035)
0.004
(0.045)
-0.083
(0.041)
0.935
0.842
0.913
0.018
0.449
0.843
0.514
0.099
0.794
0.203
0.964
0.444
0.581
0.405
0.827
0.876
0.218
0.833
0.621
0.931
0.131
0.904
0.313
0.597
0.242
0.588
0.952
0.500
0.034
0.449
0.239
0.848
0.993
0.589
0.854
0.057
0.726
0.975
0.469
0.068
0.755
0.375
0.130
p-value from t-test or F-test
(1) vs
(2) vs
F-test
(3)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
0.055
(1) vs
(2)
(4)
5364
5364
5352
5364
5364
5355
5354
5364
5364
5362
5364
(8)
Obs.
19
Columns (4) - (7) present p-values for t-tests or F-tests of means using regressions of each row variable on Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies.
Regressions control for stratification dummies (region and standardized average class size).
-0.096
(0.036)
0.000
(0.041)
Savings Behavior Index
(higher = greater propensity to save)
Table 3: Baseline Orthogonality
Means and Standard Errors
Control
Aflatoun
HMB
group
(1)
(2)
(3)
Table 4: Characteristics affecting program takeup
Savings Behavior Index
Home Savings Support Index
Work Index
Risk Preference Index
Time Preference Index
Financial Literacy Index
Expenditures on Temptation Goods Index
Expenditures on Self Index
Academic Performance Index
Female
Age
Ever repeated grade
Index of durable good ownership
Household (HH) size
Number of earners in HH
Household wages per week / 100
Mean of dependent variable
R-squared
Number of observations
Number of Schools
Aflatoun
HMB
Combined
(1)
(2)
(3)
0.0121
(0.0282)
-0.0355
(0.0263)
-0.0234
(0.0172)
0.0160
(0.0196)
-0.00581
(0.0186)
0.0258
(0.0170)
0.0267
(0.0352)
0.0304
(0.0310)
0.00402
(0.0143)
0.0991
(0.0638)
0.00619
(0.0179)
0.0773*
(0.0383)
0.0238**
(0.00927)
-0.00866
(0.00962)
0.0266
(0.0304)
-0.00873
(0.00682)
0.162
0.0642
328
10
0.101***
(0.0197)
-0.00563
(0.0298)
0.0103
(0.0423)
0.00696
(0.0325)
-0.0165
(0.0398)
0.0933*
(0.0419)
0.0141
(0.0296)
0.0181**
(0.00619)
0.0102
(0.0413)
0.134
(0.0772)
-0.0341
(0.0213)
0.0535
(0.0431)
-0.0311
(0.0365)
-0.0140
(0.0207)
0.00778
(0.0378)
0.00103
(0.0107)
0.297
0.131
241
7
0.0444*
(0.0234)
-0.0213
(0.0198)
-0.000426
(0.0234)
0.0110
(0.0195)
-0.0102
(0.0215)
0.0554**
(0.0229)
0.0331
(0.0236)
0.0163***
(0.00468)
-0.000192
(0.0185)
0.120**
(0.0476)
-0.0223
(0.0167)
0.0801**
(0.0318)
0.000412
(0.0218)
-0.0125
(0.00778)
0.0239
(0.0245)
-0.00182
(0.00807)
0.217
0.0680
569
17
Takeup is defined as attendance at one or more Aflatoun or HMB club meetings, as indicated by the club
roster sheet or attendance logs. Row variables are measured at baseline. Each column presents the results
of an OLS regression of takeup on the row variables in the Aflatoun and/or HMB schools for which club
rosters or attendance logs were collected. Index of durable good ownership is constructed using First
Principal Component Analysis. Standard errors clustered at the school level, in parentheses. *** p<0.01,
** p<0.05, * p<0.1
20
Table 5: Treatment Effects on Indices of Key Outcome Variables
Aflatoun
p-value,
Honest
Money Box Afla = HMB
Pooled Effect
Obs
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Savings Behavior Index
(higher = greater propensity to save)
0.119**
(0.0531)
0.164***
(0.0583)
0.479
0.141***
(0.0457)
5291
Savings Attitudes Index
(higher = more positive attitude towards savings)
0.0134
(0.0433)
0.0490
(0.0479)
0.468
0.0312
(0.0386)
5291
Home Savings Support Index
(higher = home environment is more conducive to saving)
-0.0267
(0.0496)
0.0516
(0.0494)
0.134
0.0123
(0.0423)
5291
Work Index
(higher = more likely to work, more hours, etc.)
0.0377
(0.0495)
0.102*
(0.0564)
0.257
0.0699
(0.0449)
5291
Risk Preference Index
(higher = less risk averse)
-0.0645
(0.0544)
-0.0763
(0.0541)
0.804
-0.0704
(0.0487)
5291
Time Preference Index
(higher = lower discount rate of the future)
0.0325
(0.0488)
0.0308
(0.0518)
0.975
0.0317
(0.0427)
5291
Financial Literacy Index
(higher = greater financial literacy)
0.0154
(0.0554)
-0.00508
(0.0566)
0.714
0.00519
(0.0486)
5291
Expenditures on Temptation Goods Index
(higher = less propensity to spend on temptation goods)
-0.0330
(0.0478)
-0.0216
(0.0442)
0.766
-0.0273
(0.0419)
5291
Expenditures on Self Index
(higher = higher expenditures on goods for self)
-0.0156
(0.0505)
-0.0645
(0.0458)
0.287
-0.0400
(0.0425)
5291
Confidence Index
(higher = more confident)
-0.0468
(0.0448)
-0.0108
(0.0445)
0.456
-0.0288
(0.0377)
5291
Academic Performance Index
(higher = higher school attendance and test score)
-0.0328
(0.0641)
-0.0467
(0.0644)
0.798
-0.0398
(0.0583)
5291
Outcome Variable
Columns (1) and (2) present individual regressions of each index on Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies. Column (4) presents
individual regressions of each index on dummies for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. Regressions control for stratification dummies
(region and standardized average class size) and baseline values for the index if available. Indices are aggregated ignoring missing
values in the individual variables. Standard errors clustered at the school level, in parentheses. Money amounts reported in Ghana
cedis. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
21
0.0241
(0.0219)
0.0315
(0.0248)
0.555
0.497
0.452
5291
0.0381
0.769
0.0278
(0.0198)
0.119**
(0.0531)
0.164***
(0.0583)
0.000
1.000
-0.059
5291
0.0529
0.479
0.141***
(0.0457)
-0.688
(1.136)
-0.287
(1.299)
-1.091
(1.264)
9.121
38.55
4.622
5291
0.0504
0.500
0.457***
(0.121)
5291
0.00807
0.858
5291
0.0215
0.0464
0.0716***
(0.0114)
0.440***
(0.166)
0.474***
(0.141)
0.165
2.541
0.0520***
(0.0147)
0.0913***
(0.0151)
0.0276
0.164
-0.00807
(0.0191)
5291
0.0101
0.938
-0.00718
(0.0222)
-0.00897
(0.0225)
0.528
0.499
-0.577
(1.214)
5291
0.00590
0.997
-0.575
(1.381)
-0.580
(1.355)
9.033
36.48
0.0104
(0.0174)
0.0196
(0.0200)
0.00116
(0.0205)
0.363
0.481
0.410
5291
0.0745
0.378
-0.269
(0.214)
-0.274
(0.218)
-0.265
(0.224)
1.233
6.538
0.917
5291
0.0151
0.937
22
Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies. Each column in Panel B presents the results of an OLS regression of
the outcome variable on a dummy for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. Regressions control for stratification dummies (region and enrollment per stream) and baseline values of the dependent variable if
available. Index is aggregated ignoring missing values in the individual variables. Savings amounts (Columns 3, 6, 8, 10) are self-reported and in Ghana cedis. Standard errors clustered at the school level,
in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Baseline mean of outcome variable
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Aflatoun or HMB
HMB
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
Dependent Variables:
Appendix Table 1: Savings Behavior
Total money
Total money
Has money
Regularly saves
Total money
Has money
Saving Behavior
Has money
saved outside
Amount saved
saved at school
saved outside
money during
saved right now saved right now
Index
saved right now
school right now
last week (GHC)
right now
school right now
the week
(GHC)
at school
(GHC)
(GHC)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
5274
0.0157
0.391
5287
0.00174
0.868
-0.00450
(0.0225)
0.0312
(0.0386)
0.00641
(0.0213)
2.094
0.570
2.353
0.601
-0.00346
(0.0232)
0.0163
(0.0251)
(3)
8.70e-19
1.000
0.027
5291
0.0273
0.468
-0.00657
(0.0274)
-0.00243
(0.0238)
(2)
(1)
0.0134
(0.0433)
0.0490
(0.0479)
Think that
saving is good
Saving Attitude
Index
-0.0181
(0.0240)
5285
0.00944
0.889
1.040
0.663
-0.0162
(0.0269)
-0.0201
(0.0289)
(5)
0.0260
(0.0243)
5288
0.0319
0.218
1.823
0.664
0.0423
(0.0276)
0.00969
(0.0276)
(6)
-0.00350
(0.0217)
5284
0.00768
0.536
0.944
0.605
0.00565
(0.0266)
-0.0127
(0.0259)
(7)
Think that
saving is for
adults only †
-0.0123
(0.0208)
1.006
0.556
0.724
5291
0.0117
0.205
0.00441
(0.0257)
-0.0291
(0.0232)
(8)
Think that
saving is for
parents only †
-0.0357
(0.0239)
5290
0.0148
0.322
1.190
0.688
-0.0207
(0.0253)
-0.0507
(0.0309)
(9)
-0.0230
(0.0234)
5286
0.00724
0.315
1.060
0.626
-0.00816
(0.0258)
-0.0380
(0.0294)
(10)
Don't think they
Think that they
need to save
don't need to
because parents
save if they're
buy them what
living at home †
they need †
-0.0151
(0.0156)
0.255
0.395
0.269
5281
0.0371
0.429
-0.00880
(0.0173)
-0.0215
(0.0177)
Proportion
allocated to
saving in
hypothetical
spending
exercise
(11)
23
Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies. Each column in Panel B presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable
on a dummy for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. Outcome variables in Columns (2) through (10) takes on integer values ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). † indicates that the variable enters the index
negatively. Regressions control for stratification dummies (region and enrollment per stream) and baseline values of the dependent variable if available. Baseline index is aggregated ignoring missing values in the individual
variables. Standard errors clustered at the school level, in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Baseline mean of outcome variable
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Aflatoun or HMB
HMB
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
Dependent Variables:
Think that
spending now is
Save every time
They are happy
better than
they get money
if they save
saving for the
future †
Appendix Table 2: Savings Attitudes
Appendix Table 3: Home Savings Support
Dependent Variables:
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
HMB
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Baseline mean of outcome variable
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Aflatoun or HMB
Have talked to
Someone in
Perceived safety
parents or
household
Parents would of saving with
Number of
Home Savings relatives about would be angry
be proud of
family (1 being household bank
Support Index the importance if they found out
them for saving
least safe, 5
accounts
of savings in last student was
most)
7 days
saving for self †
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
-0.0267
(0.0496)
0.0516
(0.0494)
-0.0215
(0.0144)
0.0159
(0.0166)
0.0139
(0.0141)
-0.00354
(0.0129)
0.0111
(0.0271)
0.0491*
(0.0256)
0.00801
(0.0747)
0.0533
(0.0739)
0.00698
(0.0443)
-0.0175
(0.0482)
0.000
1.000
0.005
5291
0.0529
0.134
0.138
0.345
0.122
0.328
0.177
5231
0.0369
0.235
2.064
0.616
2.700
1.610
1.988
5121
0.0172
0.485
0.851
0.901
0.761
5291
0.228
0.616
5287
0.00251
0.0198
5263
0.00572
0.174
0.0123
-0.00286
0.00520
0.0301
0.0307
-0.00523
(0.0423)
(0.0135)
(0.0114)
(0.0225)
(0.0669)
(0.0394)
Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies. Each column in
Panel B presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on a dummy for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. Outcome variables in
Columns (3) and (4) take on integer values ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). † indicates that the variable enters the index
negatively. Regressions control for stratification dummies (region and enrollment per stream) and baseline values of the dependent variable if available.
Baseline index is aggregated ignoring missing values in the individual variables. Standard errors clustered at the school level, in parentheses. ***
p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
24
0.000
1.000
-0.027
5291
0.0375
0.257
0.0377
(0.0495)
0.102*
(0.0564)
(1)
Work Index
0.237
0.425
0.309
5291
0.0504
0.249
0.0137
(0.0215)
0.0423*
(0.0247)
2.221
6.101
3.818
5291
0.0275
0.226
0.247
(0.260)
0.675*
(0.354)
6.918
29.56
12.23
5291
0.0126
0.528
2.226
(1.484)
1.024
(1.681)
3.864
9.974
7.104
5291
0.0352
0.981
0.350
(0.471)
0.337
(0.515)
0.0976
0.297
5291
0.00986
0.119
5291
0.0135
0.138
0.00278
(0.0146)
0.0279*
(0.0154)
0.0884
0.284
0.000190
(0.0144)
0.0229
(0.0147)
(7)
Worked in
Mar
5291
0.00281
0.0742
0.129
0.335
0.00295
(0.0155)
0.0345*
(0.0178)
(8)
Worked in
Apr
5291
0.00906
0.139
0.190
0.392
0.00267
(0.0205)
0.0361
(0.0228)
(9)
Worked in
May
0.0603
0.238
0.0814
5291
0.0129
0.00777
-0.0145*
(0.00851)
0.0107
(0.0105)
(10)
Worked inside
household
0.188
0.391
0.244
5291
0.0481
0.581
0.0234
(0.0197)
0.0355
(0.0221)
(11)
Worked
outside
household
0.0620
0.241
0.100
5291
0.00931
0.325
0.00510
(0.0107)
0.0164
(0.0119)
(12)
Worked "a lot"
during school
term
25
0.0699
0.0280
0.461*
1.626
0.343
0.0115
0.0153
0.0187
0.0193
-0.00189
0.0294
0.0108
(0.0449)
(0.0196)
(0.257)
(1.271)
(0.423)
(0.0125)
(0.0128)
(0.0143)
(0.0186)
(0.00845)
(0.0179)
(0.00978)
Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies. Each column in Panel B presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on a dummy for
either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. Outcome in Column (2) includes tasks or chores, either inside or outside the household, to earn money. Outcome variable in Column (5) censors the top 5% of observations of earnings variable. Regressions
control for stratification dummies (region and enrollment per stream) and baseline values of the dependent variable if available. Baseline index is aggregated ignoring missing values in the individual variables. Standard errors clustered at the
school level, in parentheses. Money amounts reported in Ghana cedis. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Baseline mean of outcome variable
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Aflatoun or HMB
HMB
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
Dependent Variables:
Appendix Table 4: Work
Amount of
Amount of money
Worked in past
Worked in
Days worked in money earned
earned working in
4 months to
working in past
Feb
past 30 days
past 30 days,
earn money
30 days
winsorized at 95%
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
5287
0.0262
0.833
5287
0.0253
0.973
-0.0221
(0.0195)
-0.0704
(0.0487)
-0.0285
(0.0204)
0.429
0.495
-0.0265
(0.0229)
-0.0305
(0.0219)
(3)
0.346
0.476
-0.0225
(0.0229)
-0.0218
(0.0210)
(2)
0.000
1.000
0.036
5291
0.0217
0.804
-0.0645
(0.0544)
-0.0763
(0.0541)
(1)
-0.00460
(0.0206)
5290
0.00843
0.343
0.535
0.499
0.00616
(0.0242)
-0.0154
(0.0228)
(4)
Would choose to
Would choose to
play a game getting play a game getting
6 cedis win and 0 6 cedis win and 0
cedis lose rather
cedis lose rather
than a game getting than a game getting
2 cedis win or lose 1 cedi win or lose
-0.0296**
(0.0125)
5288
0.0313
0.556
0.515
0.308
-0.0342**
(0.0155)
-0.0250*
(0.0140)
(5)
0.00380
(0.0167)
0.202
0.401
0.209
5285
0.0154
0.763
0.00660
(0.0196)
0.000984
(0.0185)
(6)
Self-reported
willingness to take Would start a high
risks
risk-high return
(0 low risk aversion rather than low riskto 1 high risk
low return business
aversion)
26
Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies. Each column in Panel B presents
the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on a dummy for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. Regressions control for stratification dummies (region and
enrollment per stream) and baseline values of the dependent variable if available. Baseline index is aggregated ignoring missing values in the individual variables.
Standard errors clustered at the school level, in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Baseline mean of outcome variable
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Aflatoun or HMB
HMB
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
Dependent Variables:
Would choose to play
a game getting 6
Risk Preference cedis win and 0 cedis
Index
lose rather than a
game getting 3 cedis
win or lose
Appendix Table 5: Risk Preference
Appendix Table 6: Time Preference
Dependent Variables:
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
HMB
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Baseline mean of outcome variable
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Aflatoun or HMB
Rather wait for
Prefer 9 cedis in
medicine that heals
five weeks to 6
completely than take
cedis in four
one now that doesn't
weeks
completely heal
Time Preference
Index
Prefer 9 cedis in
one week to 6
cedis now
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
0.0325
(0.0488)
0.0308
(0.0518)
-0.0115
(0.0197)
0.0109
(0.0186)
0.00956
(0.0184)
-0.00250
(0.0180)
0.0309
(0.0227)
0.0212
(0.0232)
0.000
1.000
0.008
5291
0.00633
0.975
0.737
0.441
0.820
0.384
5291
0.00254
0.293
5290
0.00203
0.533
0.667
0.471
0.620
5286
0.0113
0.683
0.0317
(0.0427)
-0.000335
(0.0160)
0.00354
(0.0154)
0.0261
(0.0197)
Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on Aflatoun and HMB
treatment dummies. Each column in Panel B presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on a
dummy for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. Regressions control for stratification dummies (region and enrollment per
stream) and baseline values of the dependent variable if available. Baseline index is aggregated ignoring missing values
in the individual variables. Standard errors clustered at the school level, in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
27
0.000
1.000
0.025
5291
0.0520
0.714
0.0154
(0.0554)
-0.00508
(0.0566)
(1)
Financial
Literacy Index
0.248
0.739
0.297
5291
0.00542
0.999
-0.0160
(0.0247)
-0.0160
(0.0274)
0.444
0.497
0.382
5291
0.00699
0.462
0.0209
(0.0257)
0.00257
(0.0253)
44.05
42.16
55.38
5291
0.0725
0.692
-0.0713
(2.620)
-1.039
(2.651)
0.129
0.603
0.154
5291
0.000845
0.534
0.0151
(0.0219)
0.00144
(0.0182)
0.843
0.364
0.813
5291
0.00323
0.353
0.00311
(0.0163)
-0.0137
(0.0167)
(6)
Allocation in
Shop Game 2
correct
39.49
35.25
47.79
5290
0.0493
0.736
0.899
(2.141)
0.221
(2.106)
(7)
0.654
0.476
0.672
5282
0.0303
0.343
0.0143
(0.0273)
-0.0101
(0.0247)
(8)
Do you make a
Seconds taken plan for how to
for Shop Game
spend your
2†
money during
the week?
28
0.00519
-0.0160
0.0117
-0.554
0.00830
-0.00526
0.561
0.00212
(0.0486)
(0.0231)
(0.0223)
(2.336)
(0.0169)
(0.0139)
(1.872)
(0.0227)
Two games were conducted as part of the survey, testing the ability of students to allocate money in hypothetical shopping scenarios. They were given a certain amount of money
and a goods/price list then asked to allocate their money to purchase the goods. They were evaluated on whether they completely allocated the money, the amount of money left
over, and how long they took. Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies. Each column
in Panel B presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on a dummy for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. † indicates that the variable enters the index
negatively. In Columns (2) & (5), because students were asked to allocate all of the money, the greater the difference between a student's allocation and the correct allocation, the
worse her performance on the financial literacy test. Regressions control for stratification dummies (region and enrollment per stream) and baseline values of the dependent
variable if available. Standard errors clustered at the school level, in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Baseline mean of outcome variable
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Pooled treatment effect
HMB
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
Dependent Variables:
Appendix Table 7: Financial Literacy
Difference
Difference
between
between
Seconds taken
Allocation in
student's
student's
Shop Game 1 for Shop Game allocation and
allocation and
1†
correct
correct
correct
allocation in
allocation in
Shop Game 2 †
Shop Game 1 †
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Appendix Table 8: Expenditures on Temptation Goods
Dependent Variables:
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
HMB
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Baseline mean of outcome variable
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Aflatoun or HMB
Temptation
Goods Index
Amount spent on
Amount would
Amount spent on
non-food goods
spend on fun if
snacks in the last
and entertainment
given 5 cedis
7 days
in the last 7 days
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
-0.0330
(0.0478)
-0.0216
(0.0442)
0.0361
(0.0551)
0.00340
(0.0614)
0.0241
(0.153)
-0.128
(0.118)
-0.142**
(0.0592)
-0.0116
(0.0499)
0.000
1.000
-0.051
5291
0.0523
0.766
0.586
1.261
0.644
5291
0.0291
0.565
0.719
3.487
0.560
5291
0.0130
0.255
0.666
1.416
0.359
5291
0.0371
0.0292
-0.0273
0.0197
-0.0516
-0.0769
(0.0419)
(0.0510)
(0.119)
(0.0466)
Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on Aflatoun and HMB
treatment dummies. Each column in Panel B presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on
a dummy for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. Regressions control for stratification dummies (region and
enrollment per stream) and baseline values of the dependent variable if available. Standard errors clustered at the
school level, in parentheses. Money amounts reported in Ghana cedis. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
29
Appendix Table 9: Expenditures on Self
Dependent Variables:
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
HMB
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Baseline mean of outcome variable
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Aflatoun or HMB
Expenditure
Index
Amount spent on Amount expects
self in the last 7 to spend in the
days
next 7 days
(1)
(2)
(3)
-0.0156
(0.0505)
-0.0645
(0.0458)
0.0541
(0.307)
-0.193
(0.269)
-0.281
(0.359)
-0.528
(0.336)
0.000
1.000
0.020
5291
0.154
0.287
5.249
5.700
5.154
5291
0.142
0.386
5.964
8.288
5.983
5286
0.0935
0.446
-0.0400
(0.0425)
-0.0689
(0.252)
-0.404
(0.308)
Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on
Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies. Each column in Panel B presents the results of an OLS
regression of the outcome variable on a dummy for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment.
Regressions control for stratification dummies (region and enrollment per stream) and baseline
values of the dependent variable if available. Spending on self can include, for instance,
money spent on food, clothes and school supplies. Standard errors clustered at the school level,
in parentheses. Money amounts reported in Ghana cedis. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
30
0.000
1.000
5291
0.00917
0.456
-0.0468
(0.0448)
-0.0108
(0.0445)
(1)
Confidence Index
2.047
0.611
5285
0.00731
0.865
-0.0169
(0.0303)
-0.0219
(0.0289)
(2)
1.066
0.626
5281
0.0103
0.473
0.0300
(0.0294)
0.00883
(0.0311)
(3)
1.160
0.630
5287
0.00250
0.719
-0.00649
(0.0246)
0.00212
(0.0219)
(4)
Confident in taking Has a low opinion of Often feels upset at
exams at school
self †
school †
1.055
0.580
5281
0.00186
0.130
0.0448*
(0.0263)
0.00398
(0.0227)
Teacher makes them
feel they are not
good enough †
(5)
1.070
0.603
5286
0.00381
0.446
0.000437
(0.0250)
-0.0180
(0.0231)
Often gets
discouraged at
school †
(6)
31
-0.0288
-0.0194
0.0195
-0.00220
0.0244
-0.00876
(0.0377)
(0.0257)
(0.0265)
(0.0200)
(0.0207)
(0.0209)
Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies. Each column in Panel B presents the
results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on a dummy for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. Individual outcome variables take on integer values ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). † indicates that the variable enters the index negatively. Regressions control for stratification dummies (region and enrollment per
stream). Standard errors clustered at the school level, in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Aflatoun or HMB
HMB
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
Dependent Variables:
Appendix Table 10: Confidence
Appendix Table 11: Academic Performance
Academic
Days of school
Dependent Variables:
Performance
attended, last
Index
week
(1)
(2)
Panel A: Individual Treatment Effects
Aflatoun
-0.0328
-0.0375
(0.0641)
(0.0683)
HMB
-0.0467
-0.0970
(0.0644)
(0.0653)
Control mean
Control std. deviation
Baseline mean of outcome variable
Observations
R-squared
p-value for test of Aflatoun = HMB
Panel B: Pooled Treatment Effect
Aflatoun or HMB
Standardized
aptitude test
score
(3)
-0.0291
(0.0651)
0.00527
(0.0663)
0.000
1
-0.011
5291
0.0476
0.798
4.493
1.223
4.612
4720
0.0163
0.370
0.0159
1.032
0.00
5291
0.0781
0.546
-0.0398
(0.0583)
-0.0674
(0.0582)
-0.0120
(0.0593)
Each column in Panel A presents the results of an OLS regression of the outcome variable on
Aflatoun and HMB treatment dummies. Each column in Panel B presents the results of an OLS
regression of the outcome variable on a dummy for either HMB or Aflatoun treatment. The
outcome variable in Column (3) takes the value of the student's standardized aptitude test score
for either the primary or junior high school version of the aptitude test. The score distribution
for each aptitude test was standardized within the relevant test-taking population, and these two
sets of standardized scores were then combined to form one composite variable. Regressions
control for stratification dummies (region and enrollment per stream). Standard errors clustered
at the school level, in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
32